Court Decisions - Sexual Harassment

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (6/26/98) -- Employers maybe be held liable for the sexually harassing conduct of their supervisors.

Burrell v. Star Nursery, Inc., 170 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 1999) - Employers may be held liable for the sexually harassing conduct of their supervisors even if they neither knew nor should have known that the misconduct was occurring. However, an employer may not be held liable for the harassing conduct of co-workers unless it was aware (or should have been aware) of the misbehavior.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (6/26/98) -- Local governments are now liable for the sexual harassment of any employee by a male or female supervisor which creates a hostile work environment.

Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998) School district may be liable for teachers who sexually harass their students if the district has actual notice of the misconduct.

Herried v. Pierce County Transp., 90 Wn.App. 468 (1998) – This case demonstrates the importance of prompt, thorough responses to employee complaints of sexual harassment.

Lockard v. Pizza Hut Inc., 162 F. 3d 1062 (10th Cir., No. 97-7027, 12/14/98) An employer may be held vicariously liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for hostile environment sexual harassment created in the workplace by nonemployees, if it knows or should know of harassing conduct and fails to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

MacDonald v. Korum Ford, 80 Wn. App. 877, 912 P.2d 1052 (1996) -- An isolated indiscretion, although offensive and inappropriate, cannot support a claim of hostile work environment sexual discrimination. A claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment is not established unless there is evidence that the perpetrator of the unwelcome act sought sexual consideration from the victim.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (3/4/98) – A sexual harassment claim may be based upon same-sex harassment.

Schonauer v. DCR Entertainment, 79 Wn.App. 808 (1995) -- RCW 49.60.180 (2), (3) provides that it is an unfair practice for any employer to discharge or otherwise "discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of . . . sex." It makes actionable hostile work environment sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. Even where sexual harassment is not involved, it makes actionable disparate treatment based on gender.